Bopanna s/o. Kenchappa,

Since deceased, by LR

K.Bopparaju s/o. late Kenchappa

Aged about 36 yrs,

Resident of Giddagalahalli, Complainant

Doddaori hobli,

Madhugiri taluk, Tumkur





AND



1. Sri Nataraja Motors,

(A group “Sri Nataraja Fertilizer),

(Authorised dealer for Bajaj Tempo

Limited, Pune), Opposite parties

2nd Main Road, New Mandipet,

Tumkur (Opposite to Bank of

Maharashtra) B.G.Palya Circle, Tumkur

2. General Manager, (Marketing),

Force Motors Limited,

(Bajaj Tempo Balwan Tractors)

Akrdi, Pune, Maharashtra State





ORDER







2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to replace of the vehicle or for refund alongwith the compensation to the maximum extent since the complainant met the expenditure by himself without hiring the tractor to any one and also for such other reliefs.



3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

It is his grievance that, he is a senior citizen and agriculturist and his family members are depending upon the agricultural in come. He had purchased a tractor with assurance and L.H. Kit for Rs.3,65,000/- from the OP by obtaining financial assistance from the State Bank of Mysore, Badavanahalli, Madhugiri taluk, Tumkur, in the form of proforma invoice dated 15-7-2005. It is further contended that, on believing the words of the OPs, the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle. The complainant was using the vehicle for his bonafide agricultural operation and while using so, he noticed the vehicle had inherent mechanical defects. Since the vehicle was not functioning properly, he and his family members intimated the OPs about the manufacturing defects.. Many attempts were made by the OP Company to rectify the same but all the attempts were without any positive result. It is further contended that, in this regard, the complainant had approached the OP for a proper rectification of the mistakes or for replacement of the same. But the OP Company did not co-operate with the complainant and the OPs have not complied with the norms of the trade.


Thus it is alleged that, they failed to render the services to the customer. It is further contended that, for all these acts, the complainant has suffered huge loss by way of hiring another tractor for the agricultural purposes. Thus he was made to spend thousands of rupees eventhough he had purchased a tractor for his bonafide use. Therefore, these OPs are responsible for the huge loss suffered by the complainant.



3. It is further contended that, the OPs have failed to perform the obligatory duties of services to be tendered to the customers. Instead of that, the OPs have taken illegal steps to harass this poor agriculturist though he had made full payment of the price of the vehicle. It is alleged that, he has suffered mental agony and humiliation which can not be assessed or quantified. Therefore he is entitled for compensation. According to the complainant, the cause of action arose on August 2005. Hence this complaint.



4. The complainant has also filed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in the filing the complaint claiming that, on account of illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge, he could not file the complaint within time and there is delay of 7 months 16 days.



5. Initially the complainant had filed the complaint as against the 1st OP. However, subsequently, he got amended the complaint and impleaded the 2nd OP.



6. Among the OPs, who have been notified of the complaint, one Ranganath and 2nd OP put in their appearance through their counsels and resisted the same by filing their objections.



7. The gist of the objections is as follows:

In the objections filed by one Ranganath, it is seen that, the allegations leveled the complaints are not applicable to him. While disputing the material complaint averments he contended that, he was labourer under Sri Nataraja Motors, BG Palya, Tumkur. Sri.K.C.Nagaraju now deceased was the proprietor of the said motors. He died 6 months above. After the death of said Nagaraju, he changed his work spot and he is now working at New Mandipet. It is contended that, there is no contact between himself and Nataraja Motors. He is also claimed that, the said Nataraja Motors closed down its business about 2 years ago. It is alleged that, he was made to receive the notice as he was receiving the tapals while working in Nataraja motors. Accordingly, without knowing about the matter in issue, he received the post. Thus, it is claimed that, he is not liable for the alleged claim. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.



8. In the versions filed by the 2nd OP, it is alleged that, the allegations made by the petitioner against this OP are false, frivolous and misconceived. It is further submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable both in law and on facts. The complaint of the complainant and the contentions raised therein are not true and correct. At the outset the 2nd OP has stated that, the complaint filed by the complainant without any merit is vexatious and speculative and hence it is liable to dismissed u/s 26 of the Act.



9. It is further submitted that, this OP has been made as a party to the proceedings without giving an opportunity to express its opinion regarding the same. The company has received application for impleading it as a party without copy of the complaint and supporting documents. However without the copies of the complaint and documents, it is not possible to this OP to submit its version. It is contended that, this OP is wrongfully impleaded as party to the proceedings. Moreover this OP never had any privity of contract with the complainant. It is claimed that, there is neither any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle nor deficiency in service on the part of this OP. Hence, this matter is bad in law for the mis-joinder of the parties. It is contended that, the alternative, the complainant may be directed to delete the name of this OP as the party to the proceedings. Hence this issue may be tried as preliminary issue.



10. It is further contended that, as per the clause No.1 of the terms and conditions of warranty, the warranty period for the said tractor of the complainant is for 12 calendar months or 1000 hours, whichever occurs earlier from the date of sale. It reads as under;

“The warranty period on Balwan-300 tractor is for 12 calendar months or 1000 hours, whichever occurs earlier, from the date of sale to the customer”



11. It is further submitted that, as per the contents of the complaint itself it is clear that, the complainant has purchased the said tractor on 15-7-2005. Hence as per the above referred clause of the terms and conditions of warranty, the warranty period of the said tractor of the complainant was completed on 14-7-2006 itself. Further, the complainant has filed this complaint on 5-2-2009. Thus, the warranty to the vehicle does not come to the rescue of the complainant. It is contended that, the complaint is time barred. Moreover, the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay with rational reasoning about the delay. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

12. It is further submitted that, this OP being the manufacturer of the tractor bearing chassis No.T08001012005, engine No.D17001240 sold it to the complainant on 15-7-2005. It is further submitted that, this OP is a manufacturer of the commercial vehicles, engaged primarily in manufacturing three wheelers, four wheelers and tractors etc. Further it is submitted that, the 1st OP was the authorized dealer of the 2nd OP Company. The relationship between this OP and 1st OP, the dealer, was on a principal to principal basis i.e. dealings between the company and the dealer was not that of principal and agent. There is no vicarious liability of this OP towards the acts of the 1st OP. It is further submitted that, the dealers buy the vehicles manufactured by this OP in bulk and the dealers in turn affect retail sale to the customers. As such, this OP is neither aware of the subsequent transaction nor responsible for any deficiency in service on the part of the dealer as expressly stipulated in dealer’s appointment letters. Hence there is no privity of contract between the customers and this OP. Thus, the question of vicarious liability can never occur.



13. It is further submitted that, it has a well established quality control procedure to check the receipt of input, the manufacturing process and the final product and thereafter the vehicle which passes the rigid quality control test are only cleared for sale. Further it is submitted that, the said vehicle when sold to 1st OP was in good condition without having any manufacturing defects. The independent laboratory approved by the central government of India approves the models of the vehicles manufactured by this OP. The vehicles manufactured by this OP will undergo Pre-delivery inspection carried by the dealer. Further road trails are also taken. The vehicles will be delivered to the customer only when customer is satisfied with the working and condition of the vehicle.



14. It is further submitted that, problems and complaints as alleged may be due to several others reasons beyond the control of any manufacturer or dealer; like lack of proper maintenance of the vehicle, driving habits, road conditions, oil and fuel quality, weight of the load put on the vehicle etc. It is further submitted that, as per the records available with this OP, the complainant has not availed all free services which are mandatory as per the terms and conditions of warranty, which reads as under;

“You can get the best benefit out of the above, only if you personally ensure that you tractor is sent to out dealer’s workshop, as per the schedule for each free service. Not availing the free service in time besides rendering the warranty null and void, also might cause harm to the various vital components of the tractor, due to lack of attention”.



15. It is further submitted that, for the latches of the complainant, this OP cannot be held responsible as there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. Moreover, as per the clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the warranty, warranty is limited for only repairing & replacement of the affected parts in genuine case and the entire vehicle never requires to replacement during the warranty period. The warranty clause reads as thus;

“This warranty shall cover at our option, either the repair of the parts supplied or the replacement of the parts free of charges, which we have recognized to be defective”.



16. Hence, the question of replacement of the tractor can never arise. Therefore, this OP is not at all responsible for the alleged humiliation of the complainant. Hence this complaint is liable to rejected in limine as per the provisions of section 26 of the CP Act, 1986. Hence it is necessary to direct to the complainant to pay to this OP cost of Rs.10,000-. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000-.



17. In support of the case, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavits and as well as pressed in to service of several documents. The documents produced by the complainant came to be marked as Ex.No.P-1 to P-40 and documents of OPs No.2 came to be marked as Ex.No-R-1 and R-2. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.



18. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

1) Is the complaint barred by limitation? If so, whether sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay?

2) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

3) Is the complainant entitled to any reliefs as prayed for?



19. Our findings on the above questions are here under.

Point No.1: Yes – No sufficient cause is made out

Point No.2: No

Point No.3: As per order



REASONS



20. Undoubtedly, a proceeding before the forum under the Act has to be initiated within two years from the date on which, the cause of action has arisen. Of course, the forum is also clothed with a power of condoning delay in filing the complaint within two years provided sufficient cause is made out. Section 24A of the Act reads as thus:

“24A. Limitation period

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

PROVIDED that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay”.



21. Therefore, a cursory glance of the said provision makes abundantly clear that, if the complaint is not filed within limitation, the complainant shall have to offer sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the stipulated period of time.



22. A careful reading of the complaint, it is seen that, at para No.2 and 4 he alleged that, he purchased the tractor in question on 15-7-2005 and the cause of action arose to him during August 2005. The para No.4 of the complaint reads as thus:

“4. That the cause of action arose on August, 2005 and subsequent one various dates from the date of purchase onwards and within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court”.



23. Undisputedly, the complaint came be to be filed on 04-03-2009 that means to say that, the complaint came to be filed after laps of two years from the date of cause of action. The complainant has filed a delay condonation application wherein he claim that, due to illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge, he could not file the complaint within time and there is delay of 7 months 16 days It is not clear from the affidavit as to when he became literate or when he was informed about the recourse of law in the event of delayed complaint. Who informed him about his rights and when? is not explained in the affidavit. Therefore, the bald statement of the complainant that owing to the illiteracy or lack of knowledge of the procedural law he could not file the complaint well in time, cannot accepted as a sufficient and acceptable cause. Thus, we hold that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in the filing the complaint.



24. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is seen that, the relationship between the objector Ranganath and the 1st OP as the proprietor is not established. There is no specific proof to show that, the objector Ranganath was a authorised dealer of the 2nd OP. Further, the warranty period covered for the mechanical parts was 12 calendar months or 1000 hours which ever is earlier from the date of sale. The complainant has not made out the case nor produced the acceptable evidence to show that, the vehicle had inherent mechanical defects during the period of warranty and it was not attended to by the OPs. The documents produced by the complainant do not disclose that, he had followed the instruction given to the customers at Ex-R-1 regarding free services. No scrap of paper is produced to show that, the vehicle in question was maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service manual.


The document produced by the complainant at Ex.P-1 to 38 would only go to show that, he had replaced the certain spare parts locally and got the vehicle repaired or serviced from other persons than the authorised dealers of the company. It is also necessary to state that, the figure in Ex-P-14 to 16 have been tampered with and do not tally with the rates of the spare parts purchased by him. Furthermore, there is no supporting evidence or proof to substantiate to the claim of the complainant. Thus, we are of the clear opinion that, on merit also, the complainant has made out the case for any sort of claim. Thus, we hold that, the complaint is lacks of merits and it is liable to be rejected.



25. Being that opinion, we proceed to pass the following:



ORDER



The complaint is dismissed but without costs.

Bopanna s/o. Kenchappa,

Since deceased, by LR

K.Bopparaju s/o. late Kenchappa

Aged about 36 yrs,

Resident of Giddagalahalli, Complainant

Doddaori hobli,

Madhugiri taluk, Tumkur





AND



1. Sri Nataraja Motors,

(A group “Sri Nataraja Fertilizer),

(Authorised dealer for Bajaj Tempo

Limited, Pune), Opposite parties

2nd Main Road, New Mandipet,

Tumkur (Opposite to Bank of

Maharashtra) B.G.Palya Circle, Tumkur

2. General Manager, (Marketing),

Force Motors Limited,

(Bajaj Tempo Balwan Tractors)

Akrdi, Pune, Maharashtra State





ORDER







2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to replace of the vehicle or for refund alongwith the compensation to the maximum extent since the complainant met the expenditure by himself without hiring the tractor to any one and also for such other reliefs.



3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

It is his grievance that, he is a senior citizen and agriculturist and his family members are depending upon the agricultural in come. He had purchased a tractor with assurance and L.H. Kit for Rs.3,65,000/- from the OP by obtaining financial assistance from the State Bank of Mysore, Badavanahalli, Madhugiri taluk, Tumkur, in the form of proforma invoice dated 15-7-2005. It is further contended that, on believing the words of the OPs, the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle.


The complainant was using the vehicle for his bonafide agricultural operation and while using so, he noticed the vehicle had inherent mechanical defects. Since the vehicle was not functioning properly, he and his family members intimated the OPs about the manufacturing defects.. Many attempts were made by the OP Company to rectify the same but all the attempts were without any positive result.


It is further contended that, in this regard, the complainant had approached the OP for a proper rectification of the mistakes or for replacement of the same. But the OP Company did not co-operate with the complainant and the OPs have not complied with the norms of the trade. Thus it is alleged that, they failed to render the services to the customer. It is further contended that, for all these acts, the complainant has suffered huge loss by way of hiring another tractor for the agricultural purposes. Thus he was made to spend thousands of rupees eventhough he had purchased a tractor for his bonafide use. Therefore, these OPs are responsible for the huge loss suffered by the complainant.



3. It is further contended that, the OPs have failed to perform the obligatory duties of services to be tendered to the customers. Instead of that, the OPs have taken illegal steps to harass this poor agriculturist though he had made full payment of the price of the vehicle. It is alleged that, he has suffered mental agony and humiliation which can not be assessed or quantified. Therefore he is entitled for compensation. According to the complainant, the cause of action arose on August 2005. Hence this complaint.



4. The complainant has also filed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in the filing the complaint claiming that, on account of illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge, he could not file the complaint within time and there is delay of 7 months 16 days.



5. Initially the complainant had filed the complaint as against the 1st OP. However, subsequently, he got amended the complaint and impleaded the 2nd OP.



6. Among the OPs, who have been notified of the complaint, one Ranganath and 2nd OP put in their appearance through their counsels and resisted the same by filing their objections.



7. The gist of the objections is as follows:

In the objections filed by one Ranganath, it is seen that, the allegations leveled the complaints are not applicable to him. While disputing the material complaint averments he contended that, he was labourer under Sri Nataraja Motors, BG Palya, Tumkur. Sri.K.C.Nagaraju now deceased was the proprietor of the said motors. He died 6 months above. After the death of said Nagaraju, he changed his work spot and he is now working at New Mandipet. It is contended that, there is no contact between himself and Nataraja Motors. He is also claimed that, the said Nataraja Motors closed down its business about 2 years ago. It is alleged that, he was made to receive the notice as he was receiving the tapals while working in Nataraja motors. Accordingly, without knowing about the matter in issue, he received the post. Thus, it is claimed that, he is not liable for the alleged claim. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.



8. In the versions filed by the 2nd OP, it is alleged that, the allegations made by the petitioner against this OP are false, frivolous and misconceived. It is further submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable both in law and on facts. The complaint of the complainant and the contentions raised therein are not true and correct. At the outset the 2nd OP has stated that, the complaint filed by the complainant without any merit is vexatious and speculative and hence it is liable to dismissed u/s 26 of the Act.



9. It is further submitted that, this OP has been made as a party to the proceedings without giving an opportunity to express its opinion regarding the same. The company has received application for impleading it as a party without copy of the complaint and supporting documents. However without the copies of the complaint and documents, it is not possible to this OP to submit its version. It is contended that, this OP is wrongfully impleaded as party to the proceedings. Moreover this OP never had any privity of contract with the complainant.


It is claimed that, there is neither any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle nor deficiency in service on the part of this OP. Hence, this matter is bad in law for the mis-joinder of the parties. It is contended that, the alternative, the complainant may be directed to delete the name of this OP as the party to the proceedings. Hence this issue may be tried as preliminary issue.



10. It is further contended that, as per the clause No.1 of the terms and conditions of warranty, the warranty period for the said tractor of the complainant is for 12 calendar months or 1000 hours, whichever occurs earlier from the date of sale. It reads as under;

“The warranty period on Balwan-300 tractor is for 12 calendar months or 1000 hours, whichever occurs earlier, from the date of sale to the customer”



11. It is further submitted that, as per the contents of the complaint itself it is clear that, the complainant has purchased the said tractor on 15-7-2005. Hence as per the above referred clause of the terms and conditions of warranty, the warranty period of the said tractor of the complainant was completed on 14-7-2006 itself. Further, the complainant has filed this complaint on 5-2-2009. Thus, the warranty to the vehicle does not come to the rescue of the complainant. It is contended that, the complaint is time barred. Moreover, the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay with rational reasoning about the delay. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

12. It is further submitted that, this OP being the manufacturer of the tractor bearing chassis No.T08001012005, engine No.D17001240 sold it to the complainant on 15-7-2005. It is further submitted that, this OP is a manufacturer of the commercial vehicles, engaged primarily in manufacturing three wheelers, four wheelers and tractors etc. Further it is submitted that, the 1st OP was the authorized dealer of the 2nd OP Company. The relationship between this OP and 1st OP, the dealer, was on a principal to principal basis i.e. dealings between the company and the dealer was not that of principal and agent.


There is no vicarious liability of this OP towards the acts of the 1st OP. It is further submitted that, the dealers buy the vehicles manufactured by this OP in bulk and the dealers in turn affect retail sale to the customers. As such, this OP is neither aware of the subsequent transaction nor responsible for any deficiency in service on the part of the dealer as expressly stipulated in dealer’s appointment letters. Hence there is no privity of contract between the customers and this OP. Thus, the question of vicarious liability can never occur.



13. It is further submitted that, it has a well established quality control procedure to check the receipt of input, the manufacturing process and the final product and thereafter the vehicle which passes the rigid quality control test are only cleared for sale. Further it is submitted that, the said vehicle when sold to 1st OP was in good condition without having any manufacturing defects. The independent laboratory approved by the central government of India approves the models of the vehicles manufactured by this OP. The vehicles manufactured by this OP will undergo Pre-delivery inspection carried by the dealer. Further road trails are also taken. The vehicles will be delivered to the customer only when customer is satisfied with the working and condition of the vehicle.



14. It is further submitted that, problems and complaints as alleged may be due to several others reasons beyond the control of any manufacturer or dealer; like lack of proper maintenance of the vehicle, driving habits, road conditions, oil and fuel quality, weight of the load put on the vehicle etc. It is further submitted that, as per the records available with this OP, the complainant has not availed all free services which are mandatory as per the terms and conditions of warranty, which reads as under;

“You can get the best benefit out of the above, only if you personally ensure that you tractor is sent to out dealer’s workshop, as per the schedule for each free service. Not availing the free service in time besides rendering the warranty null and void, also might cause harm to the various vital components of the tractor, due to lack of attention”.



15. It is further submitted that, for the latches of the complainant, this OP cannot be held responsible as there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. Moreover, as per the clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the warranty, warranty is limited for only repairing & replacement of the affected parts in genuine case and the entire vehicle never requires to replacement during the warranty period. The warranty clause reads as thus;

“This warranty shall cover at our option, either the repair of the parts supplied or the replacement of the parts free of charges, which we have recognized to be defective”.



16. Hence, the question of replacement of the tractor can never arise. Therefore, this OP is not at all responsible for the alleged humiliation of the complainant. Hence this complaint is liable to rejected in limine as per the provisions of section 26 of the CP Act, 1986. Hence it is necessary to direct to the complainant to pay to this OP cost of Rs.10,000-. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000-.



17. In support of the case, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavits and as well as pressed in to service of several documents. The documents produced by the complainant came to be marked as Ex.No.P-1 to P-40 and documents of OPs No.2 came to be marked as Ex.No-R-1 and R-2. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.



18. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

1) Is the complaint barred by limitation? If so, whether sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay?

2) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

3) Is the complainant entitled to any reliefs as prayed for?



19. Our findings on the above questions are here under.

Point No.1: Yes – No sufficient cause is made out

Point No.2: No

Point No.3: As per order



REASONS



20. Undoubtedly, a proceeding before the forum under the Act has to be initiated within two years from the date on which, the cause of action has arisen. Of course, the forum is also clothed with a power of condoning delay in filing the complaint within two years provided sufficient cause is made out. Section 24A of the Act reads as thus:

“24A. Limitation period

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

PROVIDED that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay”.



21. Therefore, a cursory glance of the said provision makes abundantly clear that, if the complaint is not filed within limitation, the complainant shall have to offer sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the stipulated period of time.



22. A careful reading of the complaint, it is seen that, at para No.2 and 4 he alleged that, he purchased the tractor in question on 15-7-2005 and the cause of action arose to him during August 2005. The para No.4 of the complaint reads as thus:

“4. That the cause of action arose on August, 2005 and subsequent one various dates from the date of purchase onwards and within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court”.



23. Undisputedly, the complaint came be to be filed on 04-03-2009 that means to say that, the complaint came to be filed after laps of two years from the date of cause of action. The complainant has filed a delay condonation application wherein he claim that, due to illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge, he could not file the complaint within time and there is delay of 7 months 16 days It is not clear from the affidavit as to when he became literate or when he was informed about the recourse of law in the event of delayed complaint.


Who informed him about his rights and when? is not explained in the affidavit. Therefore, the bald statement of the complainant that owing to the illiteracy or lack of knowledge of the procedural law he could not file the complaint well in time, cannot accepted as a sufficient and acceptable cause. Thus, we hold that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in the filing the complaint.



24. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is seen that, the relationship between the objector Ranganath and the 1st OP as the proprietor is not established. There is no specific proof to show that, the objector Ranganath was a authorised dealer of the 2nd OP. Further, the warranty period covered for the mechanical parts was 12 calendar months or 1000 hours which ever is earlier from the date of sale.


The complainant has not made out the case nor produced the acceptable evidence to show that, the vehicle had inherent mechanical defects during the period of warranty and it was not attended to by the OPs. The documents produced by the complainant do not disclose that, he had followed the instruction given to the customers at Ex-R-1 regarding free services. No scrap of paper is produced to show that, the vehicle in question was maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service manual.


The document produced by the complainant at Ex.P-1 to 38 would only go to show that, he had replaced the certain spare parts locally and got the vehicle repaired or serviced from other persons than the authorised dealers of the company. It is also necessary to state that, the figure in Ex-P-14 to 16 have been tampered with and do not tally with the rates of the spare parts purchased by him. Furthermore, there is no supporting evidence or proof to substantiate to the claim of the complainant. Thus, we are of the clear opinion that, on merit also, the complainant has made out the case for any sort of claim. Thus, we hold that, the complaint is lacks of merits and it is liable to be rejected.

Shri Parveen Kumar Negi S/o Sh. P.R. Negi,

R/o Vill. & P.O. Jeori, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr,

Distt. Shimla, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. M/s Force Motors Ltd. Through its President/ Managing Director, Mumbai- Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune-411035.



2. M/s Sai Automobiles. Through its Managing Director/Manager, Authorised Dealer, Head Office Near Tunnel, Sanjauli, Shimla-171006 (H.P.)

…Opposite Parties










O R D E R:







This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he purchased one Tempo Traveller {3700 mm} Mini Bus, on, 07.06.2006, from the OP No.2 under a scheme known as Own Your Own Vehicle Scheme, for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. He avers that on, 14.06.2006 the engine of the bus developed a major defect, which was brought to the notice of the OPs, who in turn deputed its mechanic and after examining the vehicle, removed the engine of the vehicle and was taken by the OP No.2 at his workshop for repairs, on, 15.06.2006.


Thereafter, repeated requests were made to the OPs to replace the said engine, but of no avail, hence, the bus remained off the road for a period of 18days and suffered loss due to non-plying of the bus on the road, as he has entered into an agreement with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation to lease the said bus for a period of five years. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in his favour.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted the purchase of the bus by the complainant, and contended that the engine was found defective within the warranty period hence, the same was replaced during warranty period.


It is contended that the date of failure was on, 14.06.2006, hence, the complaint was referred to head office, on, 16.06.2006 and after completing the procedure, the engine was dispatched from Pune on, 22.06.2006, hence, was replaced without delay and the time if any, was taken for completion of essential procedural aspects such as, transportation, dispatch etc. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. It is not disputed between the parties that during the currency of the warranty period, the vehicle as purchased by the complainant from the OPs, developed, a manufacturing defect, in, the engine.


The manufacturing defect was rectified by the OPs, on, 01.07.2006, whereas the intimation of the defect was conveyed to the OPs, on, 14.06.2006, hence, the delay which had occurred in the OPs not replacing the defective engine, with a new one, is, averred to have caused immense financial loss to the complainant, as, the vehicle remained un-roadworthy, for, the entire period of time when the defect remained not rectified. Therefore, the complainant claims damages for the financial loss caused to him by the belated replacement of the engine at the instance of the OPs.

6. The OPs deny the fact that their was im-proptitude or delay on their part in replacing the defective engine with a new one and in their reply, have detailed that they had after completion of the entire procedure, had dispatched the engine from Pune, the head office of the OPs, on, 22.06.2006 through XXps Cargo and the same on being received, was replaced. The said contention existing in paragraph 6 of the reply has not been repulsed by adequate evidence adduced by the complainant.


Given the distance from Pune, and the place where the engine developed a defect and the time to be consumed for transportation of the new engine, for being fitted, in, the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the OPs, obviously, delay was natural, as also, then, it cannot be construed to be intentional and deliberate, so as, to, enable the complainant to assert, that, by such purported intentional and deliberate delay, in, the OPs replacing the defective engine, financial loss was caused, to, him and is to be ordered to be indemnified by the OPs. Consequently, the said relief is refused.

7. However, the complainant avers that due to non-supply of the original bill of the replaced engine by the OPs, the RTO, Rampur, was precluded to make endorsement in the RC with regard to new engine No.D18008627. The said relief as asserted by the complainant against the OPs, is, tenable and when the OPs do not deny that thy have replaced the defective engine, with a new one, they, were obviously obliged to supply the bill for the new engine bearing No.D18008627, so as, to, enable the R.T.O. Rampur to make the necessary endorsement in the registration certificate qua the bus purchased by the complainant from the OPs.

8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint to the extent that the OPs shall supply the original bill with regard to replaced engine bearing No.D18008627 to the complainant, within a period of one month, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The OPs, shall also pay litigation cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant within the aforesaid stipulated period. With this, the complaint stands disposed of finally. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.